The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Murat Kasap was the first applicant’s son and the remaining applicants’ brother.

  In the case of M.S. v.

They availed themselves of that possibility on 3 May 2012, but after a remittal their case was dismissed on 26 November 2013. That decision was upheld on 10 March 2014. 44.

    The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

  In the case of Ljaskaj v.

It carried out a preliminary case review culminating in a report dated 14 June 2005 by Detective Inspector Ramsay of the Police Service Northern Ireland (“PSNI”).

In the case of Golovan v.

In the examination of the City Court’s judgment to be carried out in the present enforcement case, the Supreme Court finds from the outset that it must be deemed acceptable that the City Court has placed

That offence carried a punishment of up to one year’s imprisonment, whereas a mere disturbance of such peace ( julkisen kotirauhan häiritseminen, störande av offentlig frid ) carried maximum punishment

In the case of Dadayan v.

18 mois d'emprisonnement avec sursis et mise à l'épreuve, à 3 ans d'interdiction des droits civiques, civils et de famille, à 5 ans d'interdiction d'exercer une fonction publique et d'exclusion des marchés

In the case of Grande Oriente d’Italia v.

witnesses to be called, a hearing of 25 October 1977 because the presiding judge was absent, one of 2 November 1977 because fresh evidence had been produced, one of 6 March 1978 because of mistakes in

This examination was carried out between 17   February and 25   March 2004. In the meantime, on 5 March 2004 the District Court extended the applicant's detention until 11 April 2004.

On 24 March 2003 the applicant gave birth to a son.

    The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.

Both cases were joined. 9.     Between 28 June 2006 and 12 March 2013 the Diyarbakır Assize Court held forty-six hearings.

On 24 March 1997 the Regional Court, upon the Regional Prosecutor’s appeal of 12 March 1997, quashed the District Court’s decision and remanded the applicant in custody, stating: “The Ostrava Regional

Was there of breach of Article 5 § 4 in his case? Application no. 20033/19 Having regard to the Court’s conclusion in the case of Azimov v. Russia ( Azimov v.